MSL Post First Drive - Intermission, Start of Drive to Glenelg, Intermission between CAP 1B and 2 - Sols 17 through 29 Options

[elakdawalla]

Curiosity's Cap 1B phase was completed yesterday with the successful first drive, so now we're going into "Intermission." Dan Limonadi's guest post on the Society blog has great explanations of what all these phases mean.

There is an “intermission” that the science team will have between CAP 1B and CAP 2. The intermission will include initial drives away from the landing site, more in-depth ChemCam and Mastcam characterization and science observations, and the first SAM atmospheric science experiment. The total length of this period depends on how long the science team wants to drive before carrying on with sample chain checkout activities. The key flavor difference of intermission is that science is more in the driver’s seat and not trying to squeeze in between higher priority engineering checkout activities that have priority during CAP 1 and 2. Our current plan is to complete a significant fraction of our drive to Glenelg during intermission

Keep discussion of sol 9-16 imaging in the relevant thread -- not all of those full-frame Mastcam images are down yet.

[jmknapp]

Another try at a mastcam anaglyph. Here's a smaller version of the ML image with the MR area shown by the rectangle:



The anaglyph:

[stewjack]

Another try at a mastcam anaglyph. Here's a smaller version of the ML image with the [url="http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov

This should probably be in the Making anaglyph images, Methods and software thread but my question is did you have any further adjustments in size after cropping out the image from the larger MR area? I did somewhat the same thing*, but the objects in the ML image still appeared much smaller. It looked really weird until I started playing with something called barrel distortion in StereoPhotoMaker. I don't claim to know what I am doing but if I try enough things sometimes something works. If I don't need to correct for barrel distortion that would certainly make things simpler.

* I didn't even use the full ML graphic.

I finally got this. ( click below ) Comparing mine to yours - yours certainly looks cleaner. However; mine may have more 3d effect in the fore & middle ground? Yes? No? Maybe?
click link:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=27692

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=189878


Jack

[jmknapp]

This should probably be in the Making anaglyph images, Methods and software thread but my question is did you have any further adjustments in size after cropping out the image from the larger MR area? I did somewhat the same thing*, but the objects in the ML image still appeared much smaller.

Just did it by eye in Photoshop--crop the ML, scale it up so that it matches the size of the similar area of the MR, apply level changes to RGB as appropriate, then fine tune the registration by eye using the Move tool and cursor keys until it looks about right. Lots of variables to mess up & it always seems like there are problem areas & as you say it gets a little brain-bending. But haven't tried correcting for distortions--maybe that's key. I suppose the pros use the full CAVHORE camera models to really do it right. Here's the best I can manage with one of the rover track pairs, without any geometric changes:



Looks like you might have stitched a couple of frames together? That's another complication to get right.

[malgar]

Just did it by eye in Photoshop--crop the ML, scale it up so that it matches the size of the similar area of the MR, apply level changes to RGB as appropriate, then fine tune the registration by eye using the Move tool and cursor keys until it looks about right.

I don't find the two debayered frames. I would like to try my anaglyph version. Could you post the two frames? thank you

[jmknapp]

I don't find the two debayered frames.

I think we're on our own for debayering (demosaicing) the frames. This page has what I got anyway:

http://curiositymsl.com/mcana/

The hills have those weird green patches that people are getting. It'd be interesting to see how JPL does it (Promised Land)

[Airbag]

I think we're on our own for debayering (demosaicing) the frames. [...] It'd be interesting to see how JPL does it

Presumably they work with the original images, not the jpeg (re-)compressed versions we see, and hence they do not have to deal with jpeg compression artifacts interfering with the de-Bayer process.

Airbag

[jmknapp]

Presumably they work with the original images, not the jpeg (re-)compressed versions we see, and hence they do not have to deal with jpeg compression artifacts interfering with the de-Bayer process.

If that's what's causing the yellow/green artifacts, then providing bayer->jpg files instead of bayer->demosaiced->jpg files is no favor.

This page describes an "advanced" algorithm:

Self-Similarity Driven Demosaicking

Applying that to one of the mastcam bayered images (link) on the public website gives this:



Zooming in on a small area on the nameplate to show individual pixels:



So we're screwed?

[mcaplinger]

If that's what's causing the yellow/green artifacts, then providing bayer->jpg files instead of bayer->demosaiced->jpg files is no favor.

I've lost track of what's concerning you guys.

Straight bayer images were sent down as part of a calibration activity. We demosaic them and look at them, they're fine. Then JPL JPEG-compresses the original raw files for public release and and introduces these artifacts, which is clearly the wrong thing to do. Fortunately I think the use of raw files will be rare, so this should be an isolated incident.